It should mean that, but unfortunately it is not the case. The AAMC monitors admissions to medical schools, graduation, passing the boards, admission to residency programs, and completion of residency programs.... The ABA has a one-time exam. Do you see the deficiency here?

Strange that you seem to have a problem with a one-time exam. After all, it doesn't seem to bother you that the LSAT is a "one-time exam". You should try to be a little more consistent in what you say.

But to be fair, the ABA probably should more closely monitor who becomes an attorney and who does not, and it should also make sure that there aren't large numbers of law students who are unlikely to qualify to become attorneys. Is getting rid of all tier 3 and tier 4 law schools the best way of doing this?

I never said the LSAT was a good indicator of success, but coupled with GPA I think it does the job. You have to have something to level the field and the LSAT does just that.

Anyway, I'm done bickering with you. I've read your other posts and all you do is come on here and argue. It is not even clear if you even attend law school and if so, where.

You're getting riled up over nothing. You proposed that we should reduce the number of law schools. I simply asked you what criteria you would use to decide whether a law school should stay or go. If you don't have a good way of doing so, just say so and acknowledge that you want to draw an arbitrary line.

Hey 1L man. Just so I'm not anonymousI'll be going to the University of Kansas School of Law. I think KU is ranked somewhere around 73 this year. Do you think KU is worthy to stick around? I had the opportunity to go to Akron on a full tuition scholarship. Would you close Akron (T3) down? What criteria would you use to decide?